Q: I’ve played The Wastes of Ancient Empire at Adventure Level1 and now I want to play it at Adventure Level 2. The Adventureitself says it is played at Dragonfire level –1, while the table on page27 of the Dragonfire Rulebook says to play it at Dragonfire level 1 ifyou’re playing it at Adventure Level 2. Which is correct?A: Both are applied. You start with Dragonfire level 1 as indicatedon the Additional Modifications table on page 27, but youstill apply any Dragonfire level modifiers from the Adventure. Inthis case, it means you would play The Wastes of Ancient Empire atDragonfire level 0.

So it says to add an arcane card and remove a card of 'any' type. Does this mean, I could just remove a blue and stay the same?

You can’t add a Cantrip card and then remove a different Cantrip card from your Equipment Pack. When you’re done with adjusting your Equipment Pack, you need to have one more Cantrip/Arcane card than you had in your Equipment Pack before you took the Feature.

You might take other Features that allow you to remove a Cantrip, but the conditions of each Feature need to be met. If Evocation is your only Feature to adjust your Equipment Pack, then your Equipment Pack must have an extra Cantrip/Arcane card in it.

Activation: Most Features must be activated to be used, except as follows:• All primary Subclass Features are continuously activated. For example, Life Domain, Eldritch Knight or Thief.

There are other exceptions listed, but this seems like the relevant one.

Conjuration (Savant) and Evocation (Savant) are subclasses of the Wizard class. Just like the other examples listed, they provide a benefit, but require a change to the basic Equipment Pack of your character.

Note the MUST in the descriptions:

Quote:

Conjuration (Savant)All Conjuration cards cost –1. Equipment Pack: You must add one <U> (Cantrip/Arcane) card and remove one card of any type.Evocation (Savant)All Evocation cards cost –1. Equipment Pack: You must add one <U> (Cantrip/Arcane) card and remove one card of any type.

You don’t activate the -1 cost to the designated cards, nor do you activate the changes to the Equipment Pack. You must follow the description.

So it says to add an arcane card and remove a card of 'any' type. Does this mean, I could just remove a blue and stay the same?

You can’t add a Cantrip card and then remove a different Cantrip card from your Equipment Pack.

Of course I can. I probably *won't* because then I probably shouldn't have chosen that feature, but I absolutely can add a cantrip and remove a 'different' cantrip.

Quote:

When you’re done with adjusting your Equipment Pack, you need to have one more Cantrip/Arcane card than you had in your Equipment Pack before you took the Feature.

Rules quote please.

Quote:

You might take other Features that allow you to remove a Cantrip, but the conditions of each Feature need to be met. If Evocation is your only Feature to adjust your Equipment Pack, then your Equipment Pack must have an extra Cantrip/Arcane card in it.

Again, I disagree, mostly because as a 2p bard I had to juggle my equipment pack all over the place.Bless swap out2p swap outVarious feature swap outs.

Again, it is probably better to take the extra cantrip, but I can very much add a cantrip and then remove one.

So it says to add an arcane card and remove a card of 'any' type. Does this mean, I could just remove a blue and stay the same?

You can’t add a Cantrip card and then remove a different Cantrip card from your Equipment Pack.

Of course I can. I probably *won't* because then I probably shouldn't have chosen that feature, but I absolutely can add a cantrip and remove a 'different' cantrip.

Quote:

When you’re done with adjusting your Equipment Pack, you need to have one more Cantrip/Arcane card than you had in your Equipment Pack before you took the Feature.

Rules quote please.

Quote:

You might take other Features that allow you to remove a Cantrip, but the conditions of each Feature need to be met. If Evocation is your only Feature to adjust your Equipment Pack, then your Equipment Pack must have an extra Cantrip/Arcane card in it.

Again, I disagree, mostly because as a 2p bard I had to juggle my equipment pack all over the place.Bless swap out2p swap outVarious feature swap outs.

Again, it is probably better to take the extra cantrip, but I can very much add a cantrip and then remove one.

The Features in question all say you MUST add X card type and then remove any card. If you don’t have an extra card of X type in your Equipment Pack after having applied the Feature’s effect, then the MUST condition has not been fulfilled.

We can certainly appeal for official clarification on this point, but I think your interpretation is clearly missing the intent of these Features.

They all tend to specialize a character for a specific subclass and use MUST not MAY to describe these changes.

You’re advocating that they should all be interpreted as: “You may add X card type if you remove another card from your Equipment Pack.” If it was intended for the operation to be optional, they wouldn’t have clarified that these Features are Continuous and they wouldn’t have used MUST when they have used MAY in other places.

If you have multiple Features and rules modifying your Equipment Pack, you can certainly put a card into your Equipment Pack through one Feature or Rule and then remove it with another, as long as each different Feature or Rule was fulfilled.

For example:Evocation means you add <U>2p rules allow you to sub a Bless and you choose to replace the extra <U> with Bless.

But to suggest that with just Evocation (or Patron, or College of Valor, etc) you can add X and then remove X so you Equipment Pack is unchanged seems nonsensical. Why do these Features say you MUST add X? Certainly Catalyst could clarify the intent and I could be wrong, but it seems like a stretch and a manipulation of the rules.

So it says to add an arcane card and remove a card of 'any' type. Does this mean, I could just remove a blue and stay the same?

You can’t add a Cantrip card and then remove a different Cantrip card from your Equipment Pack.

Of course I can. I probably *won't* because then I probably shouldn't have chosen that feature, but I absolutely can add a cantrip and remove a 'different' cantrip.

Quote:

When you’re done with adjusting your Equipment Pack, you need to have one more Cantrip/Arcane card than you had in your Equipment Pack before you took the Feature.

Rules quote please.

Quote:

You might take other Features that allow you to remove a Cantrip, but the conditions of each Feature need to be met. If Evocation is your only Feature to adjust your Equipment Pack, then your Equipment Pack must have an extra Cantrip/Arcane card in it.

Again, I disagree, mostly because as a 2p bard I had to juggle my equipment pack all over the place.Bless swap out2p swap outVarious feature swap outs.

Again, it is probably better to take the extra cantrip, but I can very much add a cantrip and then remove one.

The Features in question all say you MUST add X card type and then remove any card. If you don’t have an extra card of X type in your Equipment Pack after having applied the Feature’s effect, then the MUST condition has not been fulfilled.

I have an Apple, a Pear and a Banana. I must add a Banana and remove an ANY.

First Add the Banana:Apple, Pear, Banana, Banana

Now remove an ANY.

I most certainly may remove a Banana.

Quote:

We can certainly appeal for official clarification on this point, but I think your interpretation is clearly missing the intent of these Features.

The intent of the feature is to make characters dual class.If someone wants to spend the XP and NOT gain the different basic card mix, why are you so intent on stopping them?

Quote:

They all tend to specialize a character for a specific subclass and use MUST not MAY to describe these changes.

I added the card required. I then removed any.If the rule was "remove any NON-CANTRIP" then you're right.But that's not the rule.

Quote:

You’re advocating that they should all be interpreted as: “You may add X card type if you remove another card from your Equipment Pack.” If it was intended for the operation to be optional, they wouldn’t have clarified that these Features are Continuous and they wouldn’t have used MUST when they have used MAY in other places.

No, I'm advocating for following the rules as written.Add specific, then subtract choice.

Quote:

If you have multiple Features and rules modifying your Equipment Pack, you can certainly put a card into your Equipment Pack through one Feature or Rule and then remove it with another, as long as each different Feature or Rule was fulfilled.

For example:Evocation means you add <U>2p rules allow you to sub a Bless and you choose to replace the extra <U> with Bless.

But to suggest that with just Evocation (or Patron, or College of Valor, etc) you can add X and then remove X so you Equipment Pack is unchanged seems nonsensical. Why do these Features say you MUST add X? Certainly Catalyst could clarify the intent and I could be wrong, but it seems like a stretch and a manipulation of the rules.

You've failed to convince me.

Add specific, remove any. I've spent the XP, probably because it's a requirement for something else. Odds are strong I want the diversified deck, but there are times you won't want to be *as* diversified as is being called for, at which point the XP was spent - I just happened to choose an order of execution that ended up being a 'no-op'.

Some examples:War Domain:War Domain+(BLACK), -(ANY optional)

Circle of the Land:-(GREEN), +(ANY)

Patron Fey+(BLUE), -(ANY)

Patron Fiend+(RED), -(ANY)

Hunter+(BLACK), -(ANY)

Warcaster+(BLACK), -(BLUE)

College of Valor+(BLACK), -(ANY)

Circle of the Moon-(GREEN), +(RED | BLACK)

Champion+(BLACK), -(ANY)

Eldritch Knight+(BLUE), -(BLACK)

Arcane Trickster+(BLUE), -(RED)

Conjuration+(BLUE), -(ANY)

Evocation+(BLUE), -(ANY)

Life Domain-(BLACK), +(GREEN)

Circle of the Land-(GREEN), +(chosen type, which won't be GREEN)

The above are listed in the order listed on the Feature. Apply them in the order listed.

(ANY) means (ANY) -- if they meant 'ANY OTHER' there was plenty of room on the sticker to state that.

First of all, I want to clarify that we're both discussing interpretations of the rules. To suggest otherwise, is not discussing in good faith. I disagree with your interpretation and you disagree with my interpretation, but they are both interpretations.

Secondly, and to the main point, I'm arguing for a contextual interpretation of the rules. You're arguing for parsing two operations in isolation with no sense of context for the final outcome of the Feature or for the Feature's relationship to other similar Features.

We're discussing not just Evocation, but a group of Features that fall under the Subclass Feature umbrella. These Features all mandate a modification to the Equipment Pack to better represent a Subclass, sometimes creating greater specialization and sometimes creating more diversity, or something akin to a Dual Class. In context, these Subclass Features, which Catalyst has already clarified are Continuous and not optional, need to fulfill a couple requirements:

1) The Features must have an actual effect. The Equipment Pack must actually change.2) The Subclass Features that use the same or similar language should have the same or similar effect on the Equipment Pack.

In context, my argument is that Evocation and similar features, all of them considered Subclass Features, use MUST for a clear reason and all these types of Features require that you increase or decrease a particular color in your Equipment Pack.

Some of these Features mandate a specific replacement. Some make the replacement optional. All indicate you MUST add or subtract a particular color of card.

Your interpretation, in my opinion, ignores context and attempts to parse out the features in an attempt to argue that you’ve followed the letter of the law, while missing the intent of this group of Features.

I think your parsing fails to answer the very simple question of why the designers chose to state that you MUST add a particular color of card. If they intended it to be optional, why did they use MUST and not MAY?

Further, your parsing potentially ends up with Equipment Packs that say they MUST add or subtract a particular color, due to a chosen Feature, but then look identical to the Equipment Pack printed on the character screen. To me, this is clearly not the intent. How has the Subclass been represented if the Equipment Pack is identical to the original Character Screen?

You identified a long list of Features that operate on a similar basis to each other. I count 14 true Subclass Features and 1 Feature that modifies the Equipment Pack in the same way, but does not appear to be an actual Subclass Feature (Warcaster, no other Features actually depend on Warcaster).

All of these Features include Must in the modifications. Of them, 8 unequivocally force a change in the Equipment Pack as there is no way you could try to parse the rules as allowing for an unchanged Equipment Pack (Life Domain, War Domain, Circle of the Land, Circle of the Moon, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, College of Lore, and Warcaster). The remaining 7 Features mandate you Must Add X, but include the Remove Any phrasing (Patron (Fey/Fiend), Thief, Champion, College of Valor, Evocation (Savant), and Conjuration (Savant)).

Half of these Features are completely unambiguous in the intended effect on the Equipment Pack, but you're attempting to interpret the other Subclass Features that follow a very similar pattern and cost very similar XP as being ambiguous. I agree with you that Catalyst could have eliminated all ambiguity if they had used the "remove any other" language on the Features. However, in context, I don't think they thought it was needed.

In context, these Subclass Features MUST modify the starting Equipment Pack when they are taken. In context, you're not fulfilling the requirement if you're adding and subtracting the same type of card. In context of the game and how characters develop and these Subclass Features are applied, it does not make design sense that half these Features would mandate Equipment Pack changes while the other half would allow for Equipment Pack changes if the player feels like it. These particular Subclass Features are intended to modify the fundamental Equipment Pack balance of characters that take these Features. In return, these characters gain access to restricted Features that are not available to other members of their class that have not chosen these specialized Subclass Features.

Anyone who thinks that Avatar is a guy with a blue face needs an airbender

It seems to me that B C Z is correct. His comment about how not doing it is a strange choice made me consider things and I've chosen different features. We're in a 2 player game and getting rid of more blue didn't seem good, but I liked the idea of cheaper dagger storms etc. I've traded that for drawing to extra cards at the beginning of the game. Seems better so far. Thanks for the inadvertent tip!

In context, these Subclass Features, which Catalyst has already clarified are Continuous and not optional, need to fulfill a couple requirements:

1) The Features must have an actual effect. The Equipment Pack must actually change.2) The Subclass Features that use the same or similar language should have the same or similar effect on the Equipment Pack.

Please demonstrate the rules quotes that shows that, especially #1.

I spent XP. That should be enough. I spent a resource. If I don't want the supposed advantage of the Feature (skewing of the equipment pack), then that's my prerogative, provided I've done what the Feature asked, which is to ADD and REMOVE cards from the equipment pack.

Quote:

In context, my argument is that Evocation and similar features, all of them considered Subclass Features, use MUST for a clear reason and all these types of Features require that you increase or decrease a particular color in your Equipment Pack.

No, they require that you ADD a specific card, and remove ANY card.

Quote:

Some of these Features mandate a specific replacement. Some make the replacement optional. All indicate you MUST add or subtract a particular color of card.

And I did. I added the card, and then removed another copy of that same card, which is legal if I want to spend the XP and not gain the skew.

Quote:

Your interpretation, in my opinion, ignores context and attempts to parse out the features in an attempt to argue that you’ve followed the letter of the law, while missing the intent of this group of Features.

I would be better off not spending the XP, but I have to spend that XP to unlock later Features. Odds are strong that I will take the skew, but you're requiring something that isn't written on the Feature. You're requiring a net change, and there is no such requirement on the Feature.

Quote:

I think your parsing fails to answer the very simple question of why the designers chose to state that you MUST add a particular color of card. If they intended it to be optional, why did they use MUST and not MAY?

Further, your parsing potentially ends up with Equipment Packs that say they MUST add or subtract a particular color, due to a chosen Feature, but then look identical to the Equipment Pack printed on the character screen. To me, this is clearly not the intent. How has the Subclass been represented if the Equipment Pack is identical to the original Character Screen?

Because I SPENT XP

Quote:

You identified a long list of Features that operate on a similar basis to each other. I count 14 true Subclass Features and 1 Feature that modifies the Equipment Pack in the same way, but does not appear to be an actual Subclass Feature (Warcaster, no other Features actually depend on Warcaster).

All of these Features include Must in the modifications. Of them, 8 unequivocally force a change in the Equipment Pack as there is no way you could try to parse the rules as allowing for an unchanged Equipment Pack (Life Domain, War Domain, Circle of the Land, Circle of the Moon, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, College of Lore, and Warcaster). The remaining 7 Features mandate you Must Add X, but include the Remove Any phrasing (Patron (Fey/Fiend), Thief, Champion, College of Valor, Evocation (Savant), and Conjuration (Savant)).

Half of these Features are completely unambiguous in the intended effect on the Equipment Pack, but you're attempting to interpret the other Subclass Features that follow a very similar pattern and cost very similar XP as being ambiguous. I agree with you that Catalyst could have eliminated all ambiguity if they had used the "remove any other" language on the Features. However, in context, I don't think they thought it was needed.

The simple addition of the words 'any other' would remove the ambiguity, but those words are not there. If I want to have the 'any' be the thing I supposedly want more basic cards of, then I spent the XP, and I followed the Feature requirements.

Quote:

In context, these Subclass Features MUST modify the starting Equipment Pack when they are taken.

Rules quote.

Quote:

In context, you're not fulfilling the requirement if you're adding and subtracting the same type of card.

Rules quote please

Quote:

In context of the game and how characters develop and these Subclass Features are applied, it does not make design sense that half these Features would mandate Equipment Pack changes while the other half would allow for Equipment Pack changes if the player feels like it.

It's not a 'feel like it', it's a choice of 'any' that doesn't specify 'any other'.

Quote:

These particular Subclass Features are intended to modify the fundamental Equipment Pack balance of characters that take these Features. In return, these characters gain access to restricted Features that are not available to other members of their class that have not chosen these specialized Subclass Features.

Rules quote please.

The only thing I see is "Must possess one Feature in order to purchase another Feature".The Required Feature says +X-ANY, so I do that, and ANY happens to be X.

Now... after this post and having another BGG denizen disagree with you, you have gone and asked the official channels. I suspect we'll both abide by whatever is stated. However, please be sure to state your question in neutral terms, and do not attempt to bias the result.

The question is this:If a Feature is written as "Add X, remove ANY" can "ANY" be a copy of the card added?

All the rest is reading into things more than is there. If I choose to spend XP and get less of the 'benefit' than stated on the Feature, why are you trying to stop that?

Maybe an important bit that the two of you disagree on is that is there a feature implementation order, and therefore, can you override a feature by using another feature. I could take a feature to add another blue to my equipment pack, but in a two player game I am also allowed to change out a card from my equipment pack for bless as well as other cards at higher player counts. So, can I swap out that card I added? One of you says yes, the other says no.

Personally I would go with the interpretation that you can affect your equipment pack at the start in any order you see fit and swap out whatever. In fact, I'd say features affect your equipment pack first, and that order of operations next is modifiers for two/three players and higher adventure levels. But what it comes down to here unless we get a specific ruling is what feels right to you.

Maybe an important bit that the two of you disagree on is that is there a feature implementation order, and therefore, can you override a feature by using another feature. I could take a feature to add another blue to my equipment pack, but in a two player game I am also allowed to change out a card from my equipment pack for bless as well as other cards at higher player counts. So, can I swap out that card I added? One of you says yes, the other says no.

Personally I would go with the interpretation that you can affect your equipment pack at the start in any order you see fit and swap out whatever. In fact, I'd say features affect your equipment pack first, and that order of operations next is modifiers for two/three players and higher adventure levels. But what it comes down to here unless we get a specific ruling is what feels right to you.

I’ve addressed this concern previously and it isn’t why I’m disagreeing with Byron. I fully agree that there are multiple operations that might affect the card balance in your Equipment Pack. You might make a change due to a Feature like Evocation and then undo that change using the special rules for 2p/3p parties. I think that is entirely within the intent of the rules.

My concerns outlined in this thread are solely with the Subclass Feature Equipment Pack modifications mandated by the identified Features (the thread started with Evocation (Savant) but we’ve identified 7 that are potentially relevant). I don’t believe the intent is for these Subclass Feature Equipment Pack changes to be seen as optional and that treating them as such is a manipulation of the rules in opposition with the design and spirit of the game.

I’ve never contested that you might make and undo changes using Features in combination with the 2p/3p additional rules. I’m not certain if they’ve outlined an order of operations anywhere, but I’m also inclined to think you’d make any changes mandated by your Features first to set your Equipment Pack. The Equipment Pack is a foundational aspect of your character and changes from Features are permanent (or semi-permanent since they can be undone once you cover the Feature). Once any changes to the Equipment Pack from Features have been made, you would make any changes mandated by the 2p/3p adventure rules.

I don’t believe the intent is for these Subclass Feature Equipment Pack changes to be seen as optional and that treating them as such is a manipulation of the rules in opposition with the design and spirit of the game.

This is I think where you keep stumbling.

The operations are not optional, they have been carried out, but resulted in a net zero effect, in that the player ended up with an equipment pack that matches their starting set. It'd be like a Mage who was told to study more magic, but instead of neglecting their Stealth, Glory and Devotion, decided to forgo some of their natural talent instead.

Somehow that offends you, whereas I believe that if someone wants to spend XP, follow the instructions and end up with no net change, that the player is perfectly within their rights to do so. Why? Because the requisite XP was spent, the path forward was unlocked, but, for whatever reason (probably a 2p or 3p game), the player believes that the best thing to give up on that character is whatever basic card was gained.

That is a strategic decision that you are attempting to take away from players, especially players who don't have the luxury of a full table, and that is why I continue to object to your use of the term 'optional'.

Please acknowledge that if I do the following, that I have met the requirements stipulated:

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLACK RED GREEN

Add a BLUE:

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLACK RED GREEN

Remove ANY:

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLACK RED GREEN

The cards are even numbered differently.I have removed a different card from my Equipment pack than I added.

Had the Feature stated:ADD BLUE, REMOVE ANY NON-BLUE BASIC (which allows Affable to be removed)

or

ADD BLUE, REMOVE RED, GREEN or BLACK

then we'd be agreeing 100%.

But that's not what is being said.

I believe in the end you're trying to turn this too much into a role-playing game and are being tainted by the D&D property - as opposed to treating this as a color matching card game that gives you some different ways to break and bend the base rules to the Players' advantage.

Please acknowledge that if I do the following, that I have met the requirements stipulated:

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLACK RED GREEN

Add a BLUE:

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLACK RED GREEN

Remove ANY:

BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLUE BLACK RED GREEN

The cards are even numbered differently.I have removed a different card from my Equipment pack than I added.

Had the Feature stated:ADD BLUE, REMOVE ANY NON-BLUE BASIC (which allows Affable to be removed)

or

ADD BLUE, REMOVE RED, GREEN or BLACK

then we'd be agreeing 100%.

But that's not what is being said.

This to me, suggests you don't understand the stance that daskindt has on the subject.

Repeating your interpretation over and over doesn't make it true. Yes, I'm sure everyone by now understands what you are saying here. Shame it seems to miss the point that daskindt makes.

I suspect your (BCZ) interpretation is most likely to be correct but the point daskindt raises is valid and offers and alternate interpretation or opinion.

Example: My boss comes to me and tells me the Banana, Blueberry and Strawberry Smoothie our company is going to market needs something extra. He tells me to "Add more banana, that will solve the problem!" "But I'll need to remove an ingredient" I say. "Yes, yes" he replies "Just remove something then!"Later I go back and tell him that after testing, we've settled on a "Banana, Blueberry and Strawberry mix". "You idiot", he says, "I told you to add more banana". "All you've done is create the same mix as before, it doesn't contain any the more banana than before". Scowling, he yells "You're fired. You can't even follow instructions!"

The argument is banana's is sound and logical, but strict. Technically you achieved the task and removed one ingredient and added more banana.

But we're getting away from ourselves here.

It seems to me Byron is understanding but arguing against it. The example you quoted was him showing that, but not with the strict rules being put on it. Basically, he's technically right to be able to remove anything else, because the EXTRA blue is still being added.

I think this is the correct interpretation, since one person is being strict even though it doesn't say to be, and the other is being strictly to what is written.

The argument is banana's is sound and logical, but strict. Technically you achieved the task and removed one ingredient and added more banana.

But we didn't. The task was to increase the percentage of banana in the mix.

It should be clear that was the objective. But the end result was that the banana percentage remained the same.

The point here is that people can have different opinions. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them wrong. Repeating your opinion over and over again isn't making your opinion any more correct. Just accept that there's a different interpretation and move on.

As mentioned, I also think BCZ's interpretation is most likely the right one but the alternate seems possible as well. Bottom line, I don't really think it matters, it's all such an edge case. Either method isn't going to break the game.

If the alternative 'must change the Equipment Pack' interpretation was correct, then I would expect somewhere on:The FeatureIn the 30 page Rule BookIn the 8 page Errata

It would have been mentioned.

It was not mentioned anywhere in print.

Indeed, the first time it was even hypothesized was in this thread by... daskindt.

daskindt is adding a bias to the rules as written (adding a requirement to disallow a net-zero change).

I have read and understand what is being presented, and I firmly reject it, precisely because it adds an unwritten requirement to an otherwise very clear set of instructions.

Despite understanding daskindt's point of view, I do not believe that he has accepted the legitimacy of mine - one that is apparently shared by every other participant in this discussion. Since the argument is clear and straight forward (that ANY can be... any), it's hard to not repeat when given new arguments of 'context' and 'intent'. I only feel it's necessary to resort to contextual understanding if the written text is unclear. I don't feel that anything is unclear, except to maybe one person.

In this case:1/ The player spent XP - that by itself changes the state of the system. It should be enough. For some reason it is not.2/ Examples of times that specific subtractions were presented. daskindt has used that to indicate that thus -ANY is of course not +X. I intended those examples to show that if they meant -(SPECIFIC) then that's what would have been written. This is where the crux of the disagreement lies.

daskindt believes that +X requires 'more X', whereas I do not because -ANY allows removal of the +X, while -Y/Z would not.

The word 'optional' has been used incorrectly as a result. That's what I'm actually objecting to.

Now, if the Feature required "MORE BANANA" (which it doesn't), then I've already said I'd agree with what's been presented. Taking the Analogy to add a boss's requirement to "make more banana in the shake" is not the same thing. Indeed, that's exactly what daskindt is attempting to add: A requirement that isn't there that mandates the increase of the amount of bananas in the recipe and that the recipe change.

I've also stated, clearly, that if you don't take the skew in the recipe that you should probably be looking at a different Feature set, because the only thing worse than unspent XP is spending XP on no functional change. However, there are clearly times (again, especially in 2p/3p) when you very much do not want to void yourself in a suit.

Take Champion for example. +BLACK/-ANY. In a 2p game, that could void the Fighter in a Suit, placing all of the early effort in that color on the other player. That's not strategically sound, yet some of the later purchases that require Champion might be interesting to play.If -ANY can equal +X, then you don't have to void in a suit and can still enjoy the game 2p.If -ANY cannot equal +X, then an unwritten rule is driving away the ability for people to play this with a reduced player count. I've run two 2p parties through the campaign, the second group is stuck in the Trollclaws and probably will break out soon. Restricting my choices beyond what's written on the Feature, in the Rules and in the Errata is unnecessary.

One thing that's come from all of this is a strong recommendation to avoid basic-card-color-changing Features (which is effectively any of the sub class Features) until you can purchase both the requirement and the desired sub-class feature(s). Merely color-changing your basics is most likely complete waste of XP. This might change slightly for the Halflings, where you can -ANY an Affable, which is only properly effective against one Rank II obstacle currently in print. Of course, in that case, I would be -ANYing something that wasn't the +X card.

The question has, at this point, been asked of official channels in two ways.

I will await official response.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and will adjust play accordingly, though I feel it will be a loss for the system as a whole, and 2p/3p specifically.

There are enough instances in the game where the cards or Features are extremely specific about what changes occur, or the difference between "may" and "must" is explicitly delineated, to lead me to believe the "any means any" literal reading is correct, even if it seems absurd on the surface from a roleplaying perspective. (In which case there are many things allowed or encouraged in Dragonfire that would never fly in an RPG, for obvious reasons.) Taking an extra whatever just to throw out another copy of the same whatever might not be what you yourself would do if using an Equipment Pack-adjusting Feature (or when doing swap-ins), but that doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be an option.

I can think of a large number of reasons people might choose to effectively overwrite a basic card in their starting deck with another copy of the same card, though I would imagine that's only going to be the practice consistently when you're in a 2-player game, where you really want to avoid blanking yourself in the off-classes if you can avoid it.

Going into a skill-check heavy scenario as a 2-player, I'd almost certainly want to maximize the number of cards in my deck that are of one of my 2 main colors (assuming I'm not running with one of the Features that effectively makes me triple-classed), at which point I might decide to go ahead and void myself in one or both off-classes when I assemble my starting deck. (How likely or feasible this is also depends on your character's mix of cards in their base Equipment Pack.)

If the developers meant "and you must remove any one card, which must be of another color than the one you just added" that's a pretty major restriction to not have specified.

Example: My boss comes to me and tells me the Banana, Blueberry and Strawberry Smoothie our company is going to market needs something extra. He tells me to "Add more banana, that will solve the problem!" "But I'll need to remove an ingredient" I say. "Yes, yes" he replies "Just remove something then!"Later I go back and tell him that after testing, we've settled on a "Banana, Blueberry and Strawberry mix". "You idiot", he says, "I told you to add more banana". "All you've done is create the same mix as before, it doesn't contain any the more banana than before". Scowling, he yells "You're fired. You can't even follow instructions!"

That’s a helpful analogy. To be even more clear, the company already has a banana smoothie on the menu, let’s call it the Classic Banana, and it isn’t going anywhere. It’s going to stay on the menu as an option, but the company wants to introduce a new Super Banana smoothie. The two smoothies are going to sit side by side on the menu. The boss tells you to add more banana to the recipe and take away whatever you want. You think this boss is going to be satisfied when you tell her that you added banana as requested, but you took away banana too because there was already so much banana in the smoothie? The whole point of the Super Banana smoothie was that it would have more banana than the Classic Banana Smoothie. If you ended up with the same recipe, you’ve totally missed the point of the task.

Evocation (Savant) and Conjuration (Savant) are the Super Banana smoothies of the Wizard Class. They’re designed to make your Wizard even more Wizardy. This may not always be helpful. Even though you spend XP to unlock the Feature, it doesn’t mean you’re intended to have an option whether or not to become super Wizardy and load down your Equipment Pack with Cantrips. That’s why these Features (and the other Subclass Features) all use MUST and are all considered Continuous. It’s a choice you’re making to specialize your character. It may help in many circumstances, but may also be inconvenient in other circumstances. This is a classic RPG development choice. If it was intended to be optional, I believe Catalyst would have chosen wording that stated MAY or otherwise indicated it hinged on player choice. They’ve done it in many other places, yet here they chose MUST.

As we’ve discussed, there are 14 Subclass Features and fully half of them mandate a changed Equipment Pack, no matter which side you come down on in this thread. I think the interpretation that the other half were intended to be optional is flawed. The Subclasses are meant to be differentiated from their original classes and if you end up with an Equipment Pack that looks the same then you’ve failed to apply the Feature correctly. If I place two Wizards on the table and one has Evocation (Savant) as a Feature, it should be immediately clear which character it is based upon an examination of the Equipment Pack. If it isn’t, the design and intent of the rule has not been followed correctly.

Anyway, that’s a restatement of what I’ve argued in several long posts. I appreciate the helpful analogy, Xris. This is going to be my last post in the thread until there is an official clarification. I don’t think the discussion is in anyway productive at this point. I fully understand the argument that Byron has presented. I think it completely misses the point of the Features and does not respond to any of my arguments about context.